Holding

The Supreme Court held that, owing to the long delay and the temporary nature of the worker’s appointment, reinstatement with back wages was not warranted and the appropriate relief was a compensation award of Rs 75,000.

Summary

The appellant Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation terminated the services of M.C. Joshi, a seasonal daily‑wage worker, on 24 November 1991. After a delay of six years, Joshi raised an industrial dispute, and the Labour Court held that the corporation had contravened Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ordering his reinstatement with 50 % back wages; the High Court reduced the back‑wage award to 25 %. The corporation appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court observed that the Act contains no limitation period but that relief depends on the facts, and that delay, the temporary nature of the appointment and the passage of time are relevant factors. Consequently, the Court substituted the reinstatement order with a compensation award of Rs 75,000 to the worker, holding that reinstatement with back wages would be unjust. The appeal was partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a daily‑wage seasonal worker who raises an industrial dispute after a six‑year delay is entitled to reinstatement and back wages under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Whether the delay in filing the dispute bars or limits the relief of reinstatement and back wages
What is the appropriate quantum of relief (reinstatement versus compensation) in such circumstances

Legislation cited

U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 6N

Subjects

labour lawindustrial disputeSection 6Ndaily wage workerreinstatementback wagesdelaycompensationUttarakhand Forest Development CorporationSupreme Court

Judgment

A UTfRANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
v.
M.C. JOSHI

FEBRUARY 23, 2007

B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]

Labour Laws:

U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
c
s.6N-Daily wager-Termination of services after a short period-
Raising industrial dispute after 6 years-Labour Court ordering reinstatement
with 50% back wages-High Court reducing back wages to 25'Yc;-Hekl, on
facts, impugned judgments substituted by an award of compensation for a
D sum of Rs. 75, 0001- infavour of worker-Delay!Laches-Raising of industrial
dispute after 6 years-Effect of

Respondent, a seasonal daily wage worker, after six years of termination
of his services, approached the conciliation officer. The conciliation fffort
having failed, a reference was made by the State Gov~rnment to the Labour
E Court, which held that the employer contravened provisions of s.6-N of the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and directed reinstatement of the worker
with 50% back wages. The High Court having not interfered with order of
reinstatement and merely reducing the bsck wages to 25%, the Uttaranchal
Forest Development Corporation filed the appeal.

F Allowing the appeal in part, the Court

HELD: I. The Conciliation Officer pu7°rted to have condoned the delay.
He could not do so. There is no dispute that the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
1947 does not provide for any period of limitation. But it is now well :1ettled
that the relief to which a workman would be entitled to in such a situation
G would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 71
[116-G; 117-AI

Management of Sudamdih Colliery of Mis. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd v.
Their Workman represented by Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, JT (2006)

H 114
UTIRANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPRN. v. M.C. JOSHI [S.B. SINHA, l] 115

• I SC 411, relied on . A
2.1. Even assuming that the provisions of Section 6N of the UP Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 were contravened, it is now well-settled by reason of a
catena of decisions of this Court that the relief of reinstatement with full back
wages would not be granted automatically only because it would be lawful to
do so. For the said purpose, several factors are required to be taken into B
consideration, one of them being as to whether such an appointment had been
made in terms of the statutory rules. Delay in raising an industrial dispute
is also a relevant fact. [Para 9] [117-C, D, El

Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation v. Mamni, AIR
(2006) SC 2427; North-Eastern Karnataka Rt. Corporation v. Ashappa,
c
(2006) 5 SCC 137; V.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Man Singh,
(2006) 7 SCC 752 and Secretary, State ofKarnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi (3)
& Ors., [2006) 4 SCC I, relied on.

2.2. In the instant case, the respondent was engaged as a daily wager
D
for a short period from 1.8.1989 to 24.11.1991 and raised an industrial dispute
after six years. In these circumstances interest of justice would be met if the
impugned judgments are substituted by an award of compensation for a sum
) of Rs. 75,000/- in favour of the respondent. [Paras 6 and 14)
[116-G; 118-G-H; 119-AJ
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 921 of2007.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 2.9.2005 of the High Court of
Uttranchal at Nainital in WP No. 914/2003(M/S).

Rachana Srivastava for the Appellant. F
Rachana Joshi Issar, Bij Rajesh and Kapil Saxena for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted.
G
2. Appellant (Corporation) herein is a Corporation incorporated under
U.P. Forest Development Corporation Act. It is a successor of the UP Forest
Corporation. It engages seasonal workers as and when any requirement arises
therefor. Respondent was employed as a daily wager by the Corporation on
or about 1.8.1989. His services were terminated on 24.11.1991. He allegedly H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 3 S.C.R.

A completed _240 days' of continuous work in a period of twelve months preceding ... -
the order of termination. He did not raise any industrial dispute for a long
time. He approached the Conciliation Officer on or about 2.9.1996 i.e after a
period of about 6 years. Conciliation effort between the: parties having failed,
a reference was made by the State of Uttranchal for adjudication of the
following dispute to the Labour Court.
B
"Whether dispensation with the services of Shri Mohan Chand fo~hi
son of Sh. N.B. Joshi, Field Assistant w.e.f. 24.11.1991 by the employer
is valid and/or legal? If not, what benefit/damages along with other
b<,nefits the workman is entitled for."
c 3. By reason of an award dated 28.4.2003, the Labour Court opining that
the appellant herein contravened the provisions of Section 6N ofU.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 194 7 directed the reinstatement of the respondent with 50% of
back wages with effect from 9.9.1997. Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied
therewith, a writ petition was filed by the appellant herein which was allowed
D in part by reason of the impugned judgment reducing the back wages to 25%.

4. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant would submit that keeping in view the fact that the respondent ~

was appointed as .a daily wager on a temporary basis and that too for 7
seasonal work, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
E
5. Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent, on the other hand, urged that it is a fit case where this Court,
having regard to the fact situation obtaining in the case, should not interfore
with the impugned judgment. Our attention in this behalf is drawn to an order
of the Divis_ion Bench of this Court dated 19. 7.2004 passed in Regional
F Manager, U.P.S.R. T.C. & Anr. v. Kamal Kumar, {RP No. 1886/2003 in SLP(C)
No. 24118 of2002].

6. The fact that the respondent was appointed as a daily wager is not
in dispute. He had worked with the Corporation for a very short period namely
from 1.8.1989 to 24.11.1991. As noticed hereinbefore, an industrial dispute was
G raised only on 2.9.1996.

7. The Conciliation Officer purported to have condoned the delay. He )
could not do so. There is no dispute that the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act
does not provide for any period of limitation. But it is now well settled that
H
UTIRANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPRN. v. M.C. JOSHI [S.B. SINHA. J.] 117

- ~
the relief to which a workman would be entitled to in such a situation would A
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

8. We may notice that recently this Court in Employers in relation to
the Management of Sudamdih Colliery of Mis. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v.
Their Workman repreienJed by Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, JT (2006)
I SC 411 opined:- B
"I 0. So far as delay in seeking the reference is concerned, no
fo1mula of universal application can be laid down. It would depend on
facts of each individual case."

9. Although according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of c
the appellant the Labour Court and the High Court committed an error in
arriving at a finding that in terminating the services of the respondent, the

- provisions of Section 6N of the UP Industrial Disputes Act were contravened,
we will proceed on the basis that the said finding is correct. The question,
however, would be as to whether in a situation of this nature, relief of
reinstatement in services should have been granted. It is now well-settled by
D
1eason of a catena of decisions of this Court that, the relief of reinstatement
with full back wages. would not be granted automatically only because it
' would be lawful to do so. For the said purpose, several factors are required
t
to be taken into consideration, one of them being as to whether such an
appointment had been made in terms of the statutory rules. Delay in raising E
an industrial dispute is also a relevant fact.

10. In Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation v. Mamni,
AIR (2006) SC 2427, this Court directed payment of compensation. Similar
orders were passed in North-Eastern Karnataka Rt. Corporation v. Ashappa,
[2006] 5 SCC 137 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Man Singh, F
[2006] 7 sec 752.

11. In Man Singh (supra) it was held :-

"7. The respondent admittedly raised a dispute in 1986, i.e. after a
period of about 12 years, it may be true that in an appropriate case, G
as has been done by the Labour Court, delay in raising the dispute
>.
~ would have resulted in rejection of his claim for back wages for the
period during which the workman remains absent as has been held by
this Court in Gurmail Singh v. Principal, Govt. College ofEducation.
But the discretionary relief, in our opinion, must be granted upon
H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A taking into consideration all attending circumstances. The appellant is
a statutory corporation Keeping in view the fact that the respondent
was appointed on a temporary basis, it was unlikely that he remained
unemployed for such a long time. In any event, it would be wholly
unjust at this distance of time. i.e. after a period of more than 30 years,
to direct reinstatement of the respondent in service. Unfortunately,
B the Labour Court or the High Court did no consider these aspects of
the matter.

8. Keeping in view the particular facts and circumstances of this
case, we are of the opinion that instead and in place of the direction
for reinstatement of the respondent together with back wages from
c 1986, interest of justice would be subserved if the appellant is directed
to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to him. Similar orders, we may place on
record, have been passed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v.
Ghyan Chand, State of MP v. Arjunlal Rajak, Nagar Mahapalika
..
(now Municipal Corporation) v. State of U.P., and Haryana State
D Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni."

12. The unreported decision of this Court in Regional Manager,
U.P.S.R. T.C. & Anr. v. Kamal Kumar (supra) whereupon, Ms. Issar had placed
strong reliance is not an authority for the proposition that in each and every
case an order of reinstatement is required to be passed. The fact of the said
E matter is not known. Furthermore it was passed in a Review Petition. It
appears that one of the questions which arose for consideration was whether
services of a daily wager should be regularized or not and in that situation,
while directing that the concerned workman to be reinstated only as a daily
wager but case of the workman for regularization was directed to be considered
F in terms of a purported scheme existing in this behalf.
13. The legal position has since undergone a change in the light of a
Constitution Bench decision- of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka
& Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., [2006] 4 SCC I wherein this Court held that
'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is under
G a constitutional obligation to comply with the provisions contained in Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

14. We are therefore, of the opinion that keeping in view the nature and
period of services rendered by the respondent herein as also the period
during which he had worked and the fact that he had raised an industrial
H
UITRANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPRN. r. M.C. JOSHI [S.B. SINHA, J.] 119

dispute after six years, interest of justice would be met if the impugned A
- ,._!
judgments are substituted by an award of compensation for a sum of
Rs. 75,000/- in favour of the respondent.

15. We direct accordingly. This appeal is allowed to the aforementioned
extent.
B
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall however, be
no order as to costs.

RP. Appeal partly allowed.